1887

n Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie - Relasiebegrippe in die lig van die vraag of Einstein in die eerste plek 'n 'relatiwiteitsteorie' ontwikkel het : oorspronklike navorsing

Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN : 0254-3486
  • E-ISSN: 2222-4173

Abstract

In die Duitse literatuur word daar dikwels van 'ideë-geskiedenis' gepraat. Dit is daarop gemik om die historiese agtergrond van die keuse en die gebruik van bepaalde terme te verduidelik. In hierdie studie word so 'n 'idee-historiese' benadering gevolg met die eintlike intern-vakwetenskaplike status en strekking van Einstein se bekende teorie (uit die jare 1905 en 1916). Sedert die vroeg-moderne tyd is die klem in die natuurwetenskappe van 'dingebegrippe' na 'relasiebegrippe' verskuif, terwyl verdere ontwikkelinge die invloed van die historistiese geestesklimaat van die 19de en vroeg-20ste eeu sou weerspieël. Daar word ook aandag gegee aan die wyse waarop Einstein se relatiwiteitsteorie die positiewe element in die verskuiwing na relasiebegrippe ontgin, hoewel die algemeen-bekende naamgewing van sy teorie (bewustelik of onbewustelik) die historistiese [tydgees] aan die begin van die 20ste eeu tot 'n mate weerspieël. Tog blyk dit dat hy self die benoeming van die teorie bevraagteken het in die lig van die inherent-teenstrydige aard van die historisme. Hy het immers besef dat konstansie verandering veronderstel; verandering moet, of kan, dus nie beklemtoon word van konstansie nie. Terselfdertyd omvat die spesiale en algemene dele van sy teorie 'n insig in die onderskeiding tussen die kinematiese en fisiese aspekte van die werklikheid asook die funderende rol van uniforme beweging ten opsigte van fisiese verandering. Beide hierdie aspekte belig die relasiebegrippe waarvan Einstein gebruik maak, veral soos dit uitgedruk word in sy klem op , waar die term die unieke sin van die fisiese aspek reflekteer en dié van die kinematiese aspek. Die beredenering van die hele artikel verwys deurgaans terug daarna dat konstansie die basis van dinamiek en verandering vorm en dat Einstein derhalwe in die eerste plek nie 'n teorie van ontwikkel het nie, maar 'n teorie van . Sy teorie toon dus ook aan dat die historistiese gees van sy tyd inherent problematies is, want historisme beklemtoon verandering : dit alles ten spyte van die feit dat die gees van sy tyd waarskynlik 'n rol gespeel het die in van sy teorie, naamlik as 'n relatiwiteitsteorie.

In the German literature the history of 'ideas' is often mentioned. Its aim is to account for the historical background of the choice and use of certain terms. In this instance such an '' approach is connected to the truly intrinsic scientific status and intention of the well-known theory of Einstein (from the years 1905 and 1916). The emphasis within the natural sciences switched since the early modern era from to , whilst the forthcoming developments eventually revealed the influence of the historicistic spiritual climate of the 19th and the early 20th century. It was also investigated in which way Einstein's theory of relativity explored the positive element in the shift from thing-concepts to relation-concepts even though the generally known designation of his theory (consciously or subconsciously) reflected something of the historicistic [spirit of the time] at beginning of the 20th century. Nonetheless it would turn out that he was not convinced of the intrinsic antinomic nature of historicism, precisely because he realised that constancy underlies change and for that reason it cannot be emphasised at the cost of constancy. At the same time the special and general parts of his theory embody an insight into the distinct nature of the kinematic and physical aspects of reality and of the foundational role of the kinematic in respect of the physical aspect. Both these aspects underly the relation-concepts employed by Einstein, particularly as they are embodied in his emphasis on , where the term reflects the unique meaning of the physical aspect and that of the kinematic aspect. The argumentation of the entire article is focused on the insight that constancy forms the basis of dynamics and change and that Einstein consequently did not develop a theory of , but rather a theory of . It follows that his theory at once demonstrates that the historicistic of his time is intrinsically antinomic in its emphasis on change of constancy. This, moreover, is true in spite of the fact that the spirit of his time probably played a role in the of his theory, namely as a theory of .

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aknat/30/1/EJC20505
2011-01-01
2019-08-24

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error